Road to Utopia …

Sir Thomas More depicted an imaginary Island – Utopia – as enjoying a perfect social, legal and political system. Most Tasmanians however would see our Island State as stuck at the other end of the scale – struggling in all those areas.

My vision of what the State could be in future may be judged as somewhat Utopian , believing it has the potential to be the jewel in the Commonwealth crown: the place of choice for people seeking an improved quality of life; a refuge from the ills of overcrowded cities, industrial smog and grid-locked traffic systems; a safe, healthy and harmonious place that values its natural beauty and unique assets; a place that heeds the lessons of the past, respects the natural order and understands the limits of growth in an increasingly troubled world where most countries are suffering uncomfortable levels of economic, social and environmental stress.

A realistic vision? Certainly – if we are prepared to adapt, play to our strengths and embrace the challenges and opportunities in a post-industrial world featuring amazing advances in new technology, climate change, and a new geopolitical reality – the emergence of China as a dominant economic force.

The pre-requisite for change (in the Utopian direction) is, undoubtedly, good governance. History clearly shows that the consequences of poor governance include economic malaise, social division, lawlessness, income inequality, low standards of ethics in public service, and a political system in disrepute. Arguably, we have suffered poor governance for much of the period since Federation.

How then do we achieve good governance? In my view, the essential ingredient is high-calibre representatives in the Parliament (their number is of lesser consequence). A respected political commentator once observed that our political party system is characterised by nepotism, cronyism, favouritism and corruption. That being so, how could we expect anything other than poor governance?

The major parties, who have long dominated the political scene, tend to select candidates for political office primarily for their fidelity, or loyalty to the Party , not on the basis of track-record or outstanding personal abilities. In circumstances where the Party is controlled by a few power-brokers and influential ‘vested interests’, it follows that the party interest will be served before that of the people in most cases. That’s how the system has developed, and how it works in effect.

The solution? Parties be forced, by public demand, to select their candidates for political office clearly on the basis of merit : people who have a track-record of success in their profession or vocation , have high ethical standards and on all the evidence, are well -equipped to manage complex affairs of State in a rapidly changing world. This will always require high-levels of personal competence and experience. The business world has long recognised that an experienced, talented leadership and management group is the essential ingredient for achieving sustained success.

Selection of candidates to Parliament on a merit basis would enable the Parties at election time to point to the calibre and track-record of their candidates relative to those opposing them, as a key point of difference. This process would rule out, in most cases, recent university graduates (no developed world view); aspirants from “political families’ trading on the name with little more than that to recommend them; and ‘also-rans’ from other sources : party hacks, business cronies and the like. Democracy is diminished if political aspirants see Party representation as the’ family business’, or as due reward for past loyalty.

The credentials of candidates could accompany policy statements in Party flyers, and be included in political advertisements at election time. This could replace, in time, saturation of the media with expensive advertisements that do little to inform voters: are full of spin, hyperbole and vague promises. Add to that the visual pollution of our highways and byways by placards that again, tell us nothing except which party has the most to spend – arguably, a gross misallocation of scarce resources, and undemocratic if the purpose is to’ buy’ voter support . A process that favours the Parties with the highest levels of financial backing is essentially anti-democratic in nature as it disadvantages aspiring Independent candidates, and is a significant barrier to new Parties seeking to enter the political arena.

We should expect to see high-achievers in our Parliament because after all, it is the biggest ’business’ in the State and its performance affects us all – for better or worse. Good governance in turn would lead to a restoration of confidence and trust in our political institutions, attract new business investment , heal social division and generally, nudge the State closer to the Utopian ideal. And that is important with our legacy to future generations in mind.

An important flow-on affect from having ethical , high-calibre representatives in government would be less politicisation of the bureaucracy; and a respectful, arms-length relationship with the judiciary . Democracy is best served when both these important institutions are demonstrably apolitical and free from political interference in any circumstance. In the same vein, there would be less justification for the Fourth Estate to abandon their traditional stance of playing a vital “checks and balance” role in the democratic system , exposing political malpractice and folly without fear or favour! They do a great disservice to their community whenever they choose to adopt a partisan position.

What tangible outcomes could we realistically expect after a period of sustained good government (featuring dynamic leadership and talented team members)? The first might be the institution of a corruption watchdog with real powers because representatives of good government would have the confidence to install it, sending a powerful signal to the community that they and associates had nothing to fear; and knowing an’ Independent Commission Against Corruption’ would promote public confidence and trust in all the political institutions – now sadly missing.

In my view, education is another key to moving us in the direction of the Utopian, or ideal State. If this is recognised, and the necessary resources are directed towards improving educational performance in our schools and University, there is no reason why we cannot achieve to levels that compete with, or outdo, the other States. This would be consistent with the worthy aim of being seen as the clean, green, creative and clever State. A reputation for having a better school system would attract more young families to the State, provide a stimulus to many businesses dependent on a better-educated workforce ; and help attract others. In this situation, our University, as a provider of quality education services to a rapidly growing market, could thrive, providing greater employment opportunities and become a key driver of economic growth. It is not difficult to envisage both Hobart and Launceston as vibrant University Cities, with flow-on benefits for all community sectors – housing, retail, entertainment, food and beverages, transport and the like. And it is a sustainable Industry.

For such a small State, Tasmania can boast a proud history of producing champion athletes in a range of sports including boxing, rowing, hockey, cricket, cycling – and football. It is manifestly unjust therefore that a traditional football State should be denied its own team in the AFL for any reason, let alone the spurious argument that it is unaffordable. Having a team in the national competition would have a unifying affect, bolster State pride, and contribute significant economic and social benefits . It would provide our young talent with a pathway that avoids always having to move interstate if they are to realise their sporting dreams. Strong legislators would cast aside the “cringe factor”( and other agendas) and push hard for a stand-alone State team ,knowing we would be playing to one of our great strengths in a sustainable, growth industry. We should dare to dream of a successful State team gracing the MCG on that last Saturday in September !

If, as contended, good governance is imperative in future if the State is to achieve anywhere near its undoubted potential; and if good governance is highly dependent on the calibre (collectively) of elected representatives, the question arises : do we have the pool of talented people ( with a track-record of success ) who could inspire confidence, and attract widespread voter support? I believe so as Tasmania can boast many success stories across the professions and the business, social and academic spectrum. Most are passionate Tasmanians who could be drafted into politics ( even if only for a defined period) if they believed they could make a difference and help lead the State out of the doldrums. Most would also have families and want for them a brighter future than is now in prospect if we continue along the present path. They would regard parliamentary representation as providing a valuable public service, not just a job.

Poor governance should not be accepted as normal, unavoidable or in any way acceptable. Inertia in the present system ( which advantages the major parties ) will make it hard to bring about change -but the means are with the people to do so. A sustained period of good governance may not deliver us the ideal ( Utopian ) State immediately but it would surely move us a lot further down the road towards it.

Tony Whish-Wilson is the son of a NE Tas dairy-farming family. Secondary Schooling – Scottsdale DHS. Graduate UWA (Arts/Econs). Graduate Aust Advanced Management School. RAAF Squadron Leader. Active service Vietnam and Malaysia. Rio Tinto General Manager. Managing Principal – Consulting Firm. Now farmer in Tamar Valley.